I am still unsure whether I understand Nietzsche's concept of the will to power. There are so many poetic aphorisms and complex polemics sprouting from all of Nietzsche's work, it is difficult to interpret him. If there would be three men so influential to mass/modern psychology of the past 20th century who had tremendous contributions, both good and bad, they would all be Germans. Marx, Nietzsche and Freud may as well provide a general intellectual view of modernity. Nietzsche was the most agreeable from the 3, and who had the widest-ranging influence after his death. The topic of discussion would not only concern the title of this thread, but clarifying the many criticisms and interpretations of Nietzsche. Forgive me if I have totally misinterpreted Nietzsche as I will be open to blatant criticism and constructive discourse on the topics.

If our ethical behavior must transcend both slave and master morality, what method can we apply to achieving the morality of an ubermensch? In some cases, a revaluation of all values may be eventually seen as the doubting of not only popular and personal belief systems, but a skepticism of all believing and valuing. As of late, I have abandoned my belief system of truth-seeking and general criticism. Instead I find it necessary to reflect on the psychology of myself, and of mankind.

Nietzsche did not anticipate that a revaluation will result in nihilism, relativistic egotism, or devolving back to group-think. This last result is substantiated in assuming that Nietzsche's system of revaluation as a universally applicable concept. If every man, woman and child were to be so inside themselves as far as overcoming and revaluation become the only truths in life, then we will still adopt a mass psychology. Something disturbing and contradictory lies within the heart of Nietzsche's philosophy - mental degradation did not make Nietzsche stronger.

Hypothetically then, we must, heretofore, assume that adopting a mass psychology of revaluation and individualism is attainable. Furthermore, considering the other possibilities, that allowing for revaluation may lead us into such a trap of critical excursion that we have no generally applied rules (except maybe holding individual moral values so long as they do not impede on other's ability to have their own moral values in addition to persistent revaluation) that prevent a sort of impeding will or dogmatism that totalizes all morality.

If Nietzsche's system allows for both aforementioned possibilities (which would not abide by Nietzsche's philosophy) to exist necessarily, then without a will to power to transgress group mentalities, there would be a warrant for nihilism. In this case, an individual has the right to doubt all belief systems/believing because there is no universally accepted system besides having a self-mastered and isolated one (is this not contradictory) ? This is where a criticisms and misinterpretations are fervently recognized as Nietzschean. Nietzsche was never consistent in his works as to whether he wanted everyone or a few to reevaluate and was not clear about the 'ought' vs. 'is' reality to this concept. Nor was he clear on whether everyone should have that power, or does, in fact, exercise that power better than another.

It is obvious that Nietzsche believed that everyone had access to a will to power and improving it by impressing it, but this may be why Nietzsche has not contributed to the psychology of man as much as the psychology of God. Should an ubermensch not resemble the neurosis of Gilgamesh? With a will to power so idealized for strength that people feel liberated abandon themselves under his tyranny of a divine sort? Has this divine modality not evolved into self-induced submission and infatuation, a mass masochism? Nietzsche must have meant this, otherwise, if revaluation and will to power should be introspectively and universally, then we will always reconcile nihilism.

The only psychology of the modern man which I have attained from Nietzsche is our persistence in contradiction and weakness; that our natural state must be isolation and depression to such a suicidal and nihilistic depth that our complex, and necessarily deceptive, linguistic, emotional, and interactive mental structures force us to create the eternal return (in Eliade's use, not Nietzsche's) as a hidden sedative. Nietzsche's life, in stark contrast to his works, exposes the schizophrenia evident in all post-modern psychology right up until today. Of course Nietzsche has inspired greater reflection in myself, of all possible sorts, but only so I have attained the mental framework of one of Dostoevsky's characters from the 'underground'. I am pretentious and destructive who lives so inside himself that my nihilism, as with my physical presence, seems totally invisible. Savage criticism and polite discussion is welcomed.

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor playerThat struts and frets his hour upon the stageAnd then is heard no more: it is a taleTold by an idiot, full of sound and fury,Signifying nothing."

I'm certain that Nietzsche believed that the Will to Power was universal considering he wrote that the Will to Power was the very universe itself, and nothing besides. And that we too were this Will to Power, and nothing besides.

As far as its universal applicability, as mentioned above Nietzsche believed that everyone had access to it, but I'm pretty sure he did not believe that most people would ever become "the Ubermensch". He was an unapologetic elitist who abhorred the masses.

I'm not sure where this subject is controversial, as you seem suggest. "The weak and the botch shall perish, and we ought even help them to perish". The man had great resentment towards the masses and an overall very low estimation of them.

As far as the Underground Man is concerned, I related to the central character in an absolutely obsessive manner back in my early 20's. I used to call the book "the only novel that matters" because its literary impact was greater than anything in my life sans Nietzsche.

I don't think our natural state is isolation and suicidal despair. That was most certainly my state for many years, and every now and then it returns, but I don't see why that would be our natural state as a species. I was living in isolation and despair for many reasons, including many things from my past and aspects of myself that were repressed and unexamined, and a metaphysics which viewed the universe as a chance happening governed by deterministic causal reactions, which made people nothing more than highly sentient objects needlessly living, surfing, and dying.

Keep in mind why the Underground Man believed what he believed about the world. He had not the capacity to cope with his past, and so escaped into the world of isolation and intellectual critique. Not that his critiques aren't powerful, but they are impartial, and driven by all sorts of dark passions and pathologies.

Both Nietzsche and Dostoevsky seemed to think that our psyche dictates our philosophy. Philosophy then, far from being that which articulates truth's about the world or the universe, is a secret confession of its author, and is valuable in the sense that it shows us a window into the psychology of he who authorizes it, and along with him, the culture that he inhabits.

The "will to power" is suppressed by what Nietzsche dubs "decadence". Society has suppressed and reduced our fundamental instincts that make us reach for the stars. We find this in his slave master morality dialectic and how slave morality has, in modern times, won, and the noble man must now bow down to the tyranny of the majority, to religions ritual rights that are treasonous to our natural instincts, to our will to power. Nietzsche is the first modern depth pychologist and he wants to break the mirrored image of ourselves to let us see what's beneath the surface, and to accept it and embrace it once again.

Nietzsche doesn't believe ubermensche aren't possible, he says this in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. He declares that the time will come when man will no longer be able to, where man will no longer be able to despise enough to change himself. Society has a numbing effect on us, he believes.

Stephen C Pedersen wrote:The "will to power" is suppressed by what Nietzsche dubs "decadence". Society has suppressed and reduced our fundamental instincts that make us reach for the stars. We find this in his slave master morality dialectic and how slave morality has, in modern times, won, and the noble man must now bow down to the tyranny of the majority, to religions ritual rights that are treasonous to our natural instincts, to our will to power. Nietzsche is the first modern depth pychologist and he wants to break the mirrored image of ourselves to let us see what's beneath the surface, and to accept it and embrace it once again.

Nietzsche doesn't believe ubermensche aren't possible, he says this in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. He declares that the time will come when man will no longer be able to, where man will no longer be able to despise enough to change himself. Society has a numbing effect on us, he believes.

Dialectic is a terrible term to use when discussing Nietzsche. Otherwise, I agree with everything you have stated here. No one really understands Nietzsche, they encounter his artwork and expose their true selves as reactions to reading him. Will to Power and Ubermensch no longer concerns me, but his philosophy of Genealogy, individual psychology, and eternal return interest me a great deal. I have only really studied and witnessed the perpetual degradation of mankind ever since our first writing systems and organized societies.

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor playerThat struts and frets his hour upon the stageAnd then is heard no more: it is a taleTold by an idiot, full of sound and fury,Signifying nothing."

I suppose, as a transexual, I am sort of like the neo-Neitzche. I look around me and I see broken men with hateful expressions, trodging around like troglodytes, victims of abuse and war. I think they would be very much happier as women, but do not despise themselves enough to want to become women. But hold your horses, I never said anything about cutting off their balls. They could be glorious futas and keep their balls. I am absolutely against the tyranny of society and group thinking - without balls, what weapons would we have to defend ourselves against the tyranny of the majority? And then there truly would be, caught in the gravity of gloom-. eternal damnation with no hope of salvation.